DEAD ZONE

Some or all of the content on this web page is reliable but this web page might, in part or in whole, no longer present our views on the subject of abortion.  This page provides a part of the historical backdrop for our current views.  To read about our current views, go to Abortion: The Smart Pro-Life Position.

 

THE L. F. NEXUS

HOME PAGE

TOPIC CATEGORIES PAGE

TOPICS PAGE 1

 

 

LIFE DOES NOT BEGIN AT CONCEPTION – Updated With More Answers! – Sixth Update

CREATION BEGINS AT CONCEPTION

WHEN DOES GOD CREATE THE SOUL?

 

 

Copyright April 21, 2008 9:26 PM CST

By Dr. Michael J. Bisconti

 

Updated November 4, 2008 2:15 AM CST

Copyright November 4, 2008 2:15 AM CST

By Dr. Michael J. Bisconti

 

 

 

This page is superseded, above all else, by our article titled Abortion FAQ.

 

This web page contains some information of a speculative nature; that is, some of the information it contains is not established science and, therefore, cannot be trusted; therefore, do not put your faith in everything you read.

 

Life does not begin at conception but, before you get too excited either in a good way or a bad way, you should know that the truth is much, much, much closer to the Pro Life position than it is to the Pro Choice position.

 

 

 

PROOF OF POSITIONS

 

Position I – Life Does Not Begin at Conception

 

During the first 5 days after conception the environment in which the unborn child will live is created.  See Abortion – “The Sixth Day Rule.”

 

The child appears on the sixth day.  See Abortion – “The Sixth Day Rule.”

 

 

Position II – Creation Begins at Conception

 

During the first 5 days after conception the environment in which the unborn child will live is created.  See Abortion – “The Sixth Day Rule.”

 

 

 

ANSWERING OBJECTIONS

 

Question:  If what you say is true, why haven’t the Pro Life people acknowledged this?

 

Answer:  Indifference to or ignorance of what the Bible teaches on the subject and/or indifference to or ignorance of the details of how the unborn child develops.  The Bible teaches that God made the human body before he made the human being.  That is, the “bodily house in which man would live” was created before the man was “put into the house.”  Now, the “world” in which the bodily house is “built” is created during the first 5 days after conception (see Abortion – “The Sixth Day Rule.”).  Then, on the sixth day the bodily house is created (see Abortion – “The Sixth Day Rule.”).  The bodily house is then “enlarged” over the next 9 months.

 

 

Question:  Why even bother to point out that the bodily house doesn’t appear until the sixth day?

 

Answer:  Since there is no bodily house until the sixth day, there can be no unborn child during the first 5 days.  Therefore, termination of the pregnancy during the first 5 days would NOT be an abortion.  You cannot abort what does not exist.

 

 

Question:  Why would you want to terminate the pregnancy?

 

Answer:  The Lord would want the woman to terminate the pregnancy in certain situations.

 

 

Question:  What situations are those?

 

Answer:  Conception resulting from rape and conception resulting from incest.  Obtaining a child through rape is a form of extortion, which everyone knows is wrong and which God, of course, forbids.  Incest may result in one or more deformities, which would be equivalent to permanently injuring the unborn child.

 

 

Question:  What about those strange cases where the bodily house appears on the fifth day or the like?

 

Answer:  Currently, there is no documented evidence that the bodily house appears before or after the sixth day.  However, for the sake of argument, if this happened, then, the pregnancy would have to be terminated before the fifth day or the like.

 

 

Question:  You can never know for sure if the bodily house has appeared on the fifth day or the like.  Therefore, you might be destroying the bodily house.

 

Answer:  It is technically possible to find out if the bodily house has appeared on the fifth day or the like.  However, the time and cost of doing so would prohibit this from being done.  However, no one has been put into the bodily house; that is the bodily house is not yet inhabited by a soul.  Therefore, there is no unborn child.

 

 

Question:  How do you know no one has been put into the bodily house; that is, that the bodily house is not yet inhabited by a soul?

 

Answer:  The Bible teaches that a person (a bodily house with a person in it) is “made” and NOT that a mere bodily house is made.  Therefore, a bodily house that has not been “enlarged” to its maximum size can, logically, at best, only be part of a “partial person.”  However, there is no such thing as a partial person.  Therefore, there is no person; there is no unborn child but there is more to the story (see next question).

 

 

Question:  Your answer to the last question leads to the conclusion that an unborn child could be aborted anytime up until an instant before (just before just before) the woman experiences birth pangs, which occurs after the bodily house has been “enlarged” to its maximum size.

 

Answer:  That would be true except that the Bible teaches that the bodily house is inhabited by a person, a soul, starting immediately after the appearance of the embryoblast (first appearance of the unborn child).

 

 

Question:   Your answer to the last question contradicts your answer to the question previous to the last question.

 

Answer:  Not so, though, at first, this would seem to be the case.  The former question deals with a person as a unity, an indivisible entity, of bodily house and inhabitant.  The latter question deals with a person as an inhabitant, a divisible entity, of the bodily house.  This divisibility, of course, is purely conceptual.  The fact is that the absence of a person in the former question is “anthrotipic” to the presence of the person in the latter question.  For an explanation of “anthrotipticity” see the section below titled “Answering Objections – Complex and Strange Considerations.”

 

 

Question:  When does God create the soul?  That is, when does God put the person, the soul, into the bodily house?

 

Answer:  The Bible says in the “Book of Genesis” in the Bible that “man became a living soul.”  Note the word “living.”  This word indicates consciousness and activity.  On the sixth day, the person (the unborn child [the bodily house with the person {the soul} in it]) exhibits both consciousness (see the section below titled “Answering Objections – Complex and Strange Considerations” for the discussion on “microlife hysteria”) and activity (see the section below titled “Answering Objections – Complex and Strange Considerations” for the discussion on “microlife hysteria”).  Note that there are those who say that the movements of the unborn child are mere biomechanical phenomena.  However, the very argument these people use to support this view leads to the conclusion (a false conclusion) that you cannot know whether or not the bodily house is inhabited by a person (a soul).  If this were true, then, these people would be admitting that they were willing to take a chance on murdering what, in their minds, might be a human life.  To be clear, the soul-inhabited bodily house is, of course, a human life.

 

 

Question:  Is everyone who has ever gotten an abortion a murderer?

 

Answer:  Maybe.

 

 

Question:  Why isn’t everyone who has ever gotten an abortion necessarily a murderer?

 

Answer:  Some may have sincerely believed that the unborn child was not an unborn child.  While these people were killers, they may not have been murderers.  It sounds strange but it is not a sin to destroy a human life that you do not believe is alive.  Also, those who got an abortion before the sixth day, not knowing that the bodily house appeared on the sixth day, etc., are NOT necessarily excused.  God judges us by what we believe and know and not by facts of which we have no awareness.

 

 

Question:  Can you clear up the confusion caused by some of your answers above?  Is there a person or a mere empty shell (the bodily house without a person [without a soul]) in the womb?

 

Answer:  You may have to read about anthrotipticity and, possibly, microlife hysteria, in the section below titled “Answering Objections – Complex and Strange Considerations” in order to have your confusion cleared up.  However, we can add the following, which may or may not clear up your confusion immediately:

 

Costristically, there is a person in the womb and not a mere empty shell.

 

The above statement is equivalent to the following statement (an operational proposition):

 

There “is being” (note quotes) a person in the womb and not a mere empty shell.

 

Finally (and I believe this will clear things up immediately and once and for all for most people), if someone were to put a gun to my head and demand that I provide an answer to the question that the average person can easily understand, I would answer:

 

There is a person in the womb and not a mere empty shell!

 

 

 

ANSWERING OBJECTIONS – COMPLEX & STRANGE CONSIDERATIONS

 

 

ANTHROTIPTICITY

 

Anthrotipticity is “the energy state of an organism as representative of whether or not it has been ‘enhanced’ by a ‘life force’ or what is commonly referred to as the ‘soul.’”

 

We will be elaborating on this topic as soon as we have the opportunity.  We will be examining the studies of Bernes, of Houseman, of Lazarus, and of a dozen other experts in the field of anthrotiptonics.

 

 

MICROLIFE HYSTERIA

 

The “Zine Study,” circa 2007, using microbiological techniques, has measured the common indicators of consciousness and activity.  These are represented on a macro scale as normal brain wave measurements in adult human brains.  Zine found that the 6-day “embryo” “broadcasts” the “brain waves of normal human adults.” To the less than meticulous among our readers:  note the quotes. In case you are not familiar with this regular use of quotation marks, note that, in the present context, each item in quotation marks is used in a special sense, which is explained in Dr. Zine's study.

 

We will be elaborating on this topic as soon as we have the opportunity.  We will also be referencing the studies of Johnson, of Kingleman, of Cameron, and of a score of other microlife scientists.

 

 

 

 

 

This is an extremely difficult concept to grasp.  First, note that the word “effective,” in the present context, means “in effect,” that is, “virtual.”

 

Now, “costristicity” is “that which is neither actual nor effective nor either actual or effective.”  The framework for this concept is a reality (we will call it reality “X”) relative to which we are addressing two properties.  We will call these properties “A” and “B.”  In terms of pure logic, costristicity says:

 

Reality “X” does not have property “A” and reality “X” does not have property “B” and reality “X” does not have either property “A” or property “B.”

 

Using mathematical logic (Kensian system):

 

(X ∩ A) + (X ∩ B) + [X ∩ (A,B)]

 

This simplifies to:

 

[X ∩ (A,,B)] + [X ∩ (A,B)]

 

By the Rule of Dermtaxicos, we then have:

 

[X ∩ (A,,,B)]

 

Translating back to verbal logic, we have:

 

Reality “X” does not care about either “A” or “B.”

 

 

An operational proposition is an idea that is true in effect (an idea that is false but has the same effect that it would have if it were true).  Living by an operational proposition will have the same result as living by the corresponding truth (what would be the truth if the operational proposition were true).

 

 

 

(2) Improved Web Page Template Adopted Saturday, April 12, 2008 6:55:45 PM CST (GMT-5)